Skip to content

Conversation

@mtfishman
Copy link
Member

Followup to #118.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 20, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.26%. Comparing base (16241c9) to head (51274ea).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #119      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.11%   90.26%   +0.15%     
==========================================
  Files          54       54              
  Lines        3581     3575       -6     
==========================================
  Hits         3227     3227              
+ Misses        354      348       -6     
Flag Coverage Δ
docs 18.37% <ø> (+18.37%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@mtfishman mtfishman requested a review from emstoudenmire March 20, 2025 19:58
Copy link
Contributor

@emstoudenmire emstoudenmire left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good. I think it's appropriate to move all of this content here, and we can think later about things like the SiteType or OpSum system and moving some of these docs to a different place in the future for some of those systems.

@mtfishman
Copy link
Member Author

Looks good. I think it's appropriate to move all of this content here, and we can think later about things like the SiteType or OpSum system and moving some of these docs to a different place in the future for some of those systems.

Yes, that's the most controversial part of this. As part of the rewrite those will be in separate packages anyway, so we can primarily document them as part of that package and then link to and maybe repeat some of that documentation in packages like ITensorMPS.jl and ITensorNetworks.jl. My goal for the rewrite is to make ITensors.jl itself much more minimal and split off more functionality into self-contained packages so I think it will be more obvious where to document things.

@mtfishman mtfishman merged commit 226d2ee into main Mar 22, 2025
12 checks passed
@mtfishman mtfishman deleted the add_docs branch March 22, 2025 13:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants